Philosophy Now Forum

jackles wrote:a thought experiment on eternal life.if there were to be eternal life would that eternal life be local or nonlocal.just do the experiment.

It'd be local as I assume I'll be living eternally. Or at least until the universe runs out.

that would be imposible it would mean you existed as a sizelike limited thing with a relative place.no heavenly existance would have to be nolocal with no size limits of time and space.

jackles wrote:that would be imposible it would mean you existed as a sizelike limited thing with a relative place.no heavenly existance would have to be nolocal with no size limits of time and space.

You asked about eternal life, that means me living eternally, as such that means me here and now living forever(or at least with the qualification 'as long as the universe exists'), so very local and whilst highly improbable not impossible. No idea what this 'heavenly existence' is you talk about, sounds like wishful thinking to me.

jackles wrote:logic needs relativity to exist.so consciousness is the cause of logic in the event.the event is local so for relativity to exist consciousness by logic has to be nonlocal..that is logic arising how come you cant see it.

1. logic needs relativity to exist - axiom
2. so consciousness is the cause of logic in the event - conclusion
3. the event is local - axiom
4. so for relativity to exist consciousness by logic has to be nonlocal - conclusion

2. only applies if you add the axiom 'consciousness is the cause of relativity'
4. only applies if you add the axiom 'relativity is non-local'

So your argument should be something like this,
1. logic needs relativity to exist - axiom
2. consciousness is the cause of relativity - axiom
3. so consciousness is the cause of logic in the event - conclusion, (although you add this 'event' with no justification. The best you can get is really 3.1 so consciousness is the cause of logic.)
4. the event is local - axiom
5. relativity is non-local - axiom
6. so for relativity to exist consciousness has to be nonlocal - conclusion
or something like this.

Since I think 1. is false as all Logic needs to exist is an object, thing or state of affair your conclusions are false.

But then again I have no idea what you mean by 'relativity' in this case?

without consciousness there could be no logic.logic reqiures a conscious observer to fathom details in the event .thoughts are details of the event in consciousness.if somthing is in consciousness it also must be in relativity to that observing consciousness.say for instance the observer was studying a maths prob.logic is a form of relativity because conscipusness is relativity in all its forms.

Jackles no offence is there ever any likelihood you will make a post that doesn't refer to relativity or non locality. Just asking. It's your prerogative, of course.

know what your saying blags but .consciousness =relativity=nonlocality.but no one seems to see my point.may be as you say i should stop harping on about it.but other topics seem relativly dull and local.ha

Well as I have advised before read up on the subject, if you can still make the same arguments after you are knowledgeable of course do so. At the moment, though you seem muddled, which is probably why no one gets it, your ideas are all over the place and contradictory. Which is no one's fault, not even the Romans. But you probably want to look the shit up, it's not hard to find on the interweb, and it would probably help you make a better argument someone might get. I assure you atm your problem isn't that people don't get your ideas, just that your ideas are quite crazy.

http://www.physicsforums.com/

Forum area about quantum mechanics:

http://www.physicsforums.com/forumdispl ... 4bb61&f=62

Try here, lurk for God's sake though if you post in the manner you do now, your first post is likely to be your last; this is a science forum not a philosophy forum, the rules are very, very, very, very, very, very different and if you do feel the need to post you should read those at least. They say any speculative science is going to earn you crucifixion, pretty much, stick to the program, it's not that we don't like speculation, but this is a learning forum for those studying physics and maths, not a happy clapper club for those who have done too much acid. I am paraphrasing a little, but you get the gist.

bless you blagsy.

jackles wrote:without consciousness there could be no logic. logic reqiures a conscious observer to fathom details in the event ....

No, there could be no Symbolism of Logic. All Logic requires is for there to be things or states of affairs.

thoughts are details of the event in consciousness. ...

Disagree, thoughts are abstracts of events happening to that consciousness.

if somthing is in consciousness it also must be in relativity to that observing consciousness. ...

what do you mean by
'in relativity'? You think 'relativity' a thing? I agree its a state of affair.

say for instance the observer was studying a maths prob.logic is a form of relativity because conscipusness is relativity in all its forms.

Pretty much gibberish. Can you say this in understandable English? As if you can't then you are not saying anything. As Wittgenstein pointed out, if a thing can be said then it can be said clearly. This does not mean its still not a thing, just that if not you appear to be trying to say something that can't be said. So stop saying it and point to it.

Arising_uk wrote:thoughts are abstracts of events happening to that consciousness.

Are you comfortable with the way you've formulated this?

the Hessian wrote:Are you comfortable with the way you've formulated this?

Reasonably so but I'm open to critique. You got any?

Arising_uk wrote:

the Hessian wrote:Are you comfortable with the way you've formulated this?

Reasonably so but I'm open too critique. You got any?

I'm not entirely sure (either that I have one or that's it's worth anything), so thanks for humoring me.

I think I want to say that consciousness is an abstraction of events happening in the brain. Nothing ever really happens to consciousness, as what actually happens has already happened, so to speak.

Thinking is a type of focusing that emphasizes certain neural events, or emphasizes certain combinations of neural events, over others. In this sense, something like logic is a discipline of a certain type of focus. That logic also seems to have the potential to be perfect is nothing short of amazing.

So that's what I want to say. But I'm unsure if it commits me to anything problematic.

I think I want to say that consciousness is an abstraction of events happening in the brain. Nothing ever really happens to consciousness, as what actually happens has already happened, so to speak.

What do you mean by 'abstraction?' I think I agree with you, except when you say 'nothing ever really happens to consciousness;' different things cause different aspects of consciousness, right? Arising is a logical positivist ( ) and thinks that everything in consciousness emanates from 'the world'.

Wyman wrote:

I think I want to say that consciousness is an abstraction of events happening in the brain. Nothing ever really happens to consciousness, as what actually happens has already happened, so to speak.

What do you mean by 'abstraction?' I think I agree with you, except when you say 'nothing ever really happens to consciousness;' different things cause different aspects of consciousness, right? Arising is a logical positivist ( ) and thinks that everything in consciousness emanates from 'the world'.

Hi Wyman.

I mean abstraction in a pretty straightforward sense--a reduction of information to what's relevant. Consciousness acts as the frame of relevance. It is in this way that I mean nothing happens *to* consciousness. Everything is already happening somewhere else.

My consciousness emerges from the activity of my brain, which is part of the world with which it engages. I don't know if that's the same as saying that "consciousness emanates from the world?" Someone might have to explain it to me if it doesn't.